Recommended Traffic and Pedestrian Signals

Traffic and Pedestrian signals listed below are recommended based on an engineering study conducted for each location. This ranking list is updated annually, but needs and opportunities for funding are monitored throughout the year. Should funding become available for these signals, they would be constructed in this order, subject to influencing factors described in the Construction Ranking Process below.

2021 Unfunded Traffic Signals

Rank

Location

1

 ANDERSON LN / ANDERSON SQ

2

 CONGRESS AVE / DITTMAR RD

3

 BLUFF SPRINGS RD / QUICKSILVER BLVD

4

 HARRIS BRANCH PKWY / GILES LN

5

 DESSAU RD / DESSAU RIDGE LN

6

 BERKMAN DR / PATTON LN

7

 MANOR RD / ALEXANDER AVE

8

 5TH ST / SAN ANTONIO ST

9

 FAR WEST BLVD / AUSTIN CENTER BLVD

10

 MONTOPOLIS DR / GROVE BLVD

11

 BURLESON RD / METROPOLIS DR

12

 PEARCE LN / PASEO NUEVO CIR

13

 CONGRESS AVE / RAMBLE LN

14

 1ST ST / GREAT BRITAIN BLVD

15

 GILES LN / BRAKER LN

 

2021 Unfunded Pedestrian Signals

Rank

Location

1

300 BLK E HUNTLAND DR (St. Francis School)

2

1424 BLK W WELLS BRANCH PKWY

3

2031 BLK W STASSNEY LN (West of Menchaca)

4

 MANOR RD / WALNUT AVE

5

832 BLK E RUNDBERG LN (Harmony School (930 Rundberg))

6

 MANOR RD / SWEENEY LN

7

1000 BLK NORWOOD PARK BLVD

8

 MENCHACA RD / SEDGEMOOR TRL

9

 1ST ST / BRAMBLE DR

Construction Ranking Process:

All things being equal, recommended locations are scheduled for design and construction based on their request evaluation score. However, there are other factors considered when determining what locations move into design and construction.  

These factors include things such as:

  • Private funding: Many private developments are required to provide funding for traffic improvements (such as signals) as a result of the traffic patterns and volumes the development will create.
  • Other City Funding Sources: Other city divisions or departments may have priorities that differ from those of the Arterial Management Division and may be willing to provide funding for a specific signal. For instance, Safe Routes to School may identify the need for a pedestrian signal at a specific location. This location may not have the top evaluation score but is a priority for the Safe Routes to School program.  
  • Facilitated Construction: There could be existing infrastructure that makes installing a signal very cost-effective. The infrastructure could be existing conduit or foundations or converting an existing pedestrian signal to a traffic signal.
  • Other Entities: Austin Transportation may install a traffic signal at a specific location to safely facilitate mass transit routes. These types of improvements are typically funded by the transit agency.
  • Council Priorities: City Council members may identify funding for a specific improvement that may not have the highest evaluation score.
  • Safety Concerns: A location with a lower evaluation score but a high crash score may be constructed ahead of locations with higher evaluation scores in order to reduce potential risks to the community.
  • Constructability Issues: The cost to install a signal at a specific location may be cost-prohibitive. These issues could be complications such as right of way limitations, utility conflicts, etc.
  • Engineering Judgment: Given the myriad of considerations that impact the decision to construct a signal, engineering judgment is an integral part of the process.